: MR. HIBBERT: The amount of the contract is £27,891, towards which a free grant of £15,000 will be made. It is not possible yet, owing to the weather, to say what extra cost there will be, but it is expected to be small. Any excess over the estimate will be met by loan, in accordance with the Act. The Treasury are not prepared to send another engineer to the spot, as it would involve extra expenses; but I will call for a special Report as to the state of the foundations. Court, when a litigated case of O'Brien | send some independent engineer, not v. M'Grath was called on. One of the connected with the Board of Works, witnesses for Defendant was John Griffin, to examine the condition of the breakof Querrin, a farmer, and one of the water, and Report upon the extent and jurors who served in the case of The nature of the injury? Queen v. Ryan. Immediately after he gave his evidence in the civil case the County Court Judge, addressing him, said "Come now, tell me, were you not a juror in Ryan's case, just tried?" -Answer: "I was, Sir; Judge "Were you for convicting or acquitting him?"-Answer: "I was for letting him free;" if, in questioning a juror with regard to what transpired in the jury room, Mr. Kelly did not exceed his right; if it is not a fact that, upon at least one previous occasion, the Lords Justices have called upon Mr. Kelly for an explanation of his conduct as Judge; and, if in this instance similar inquiry will be made, in order to stop a dangerous and unconstitutional proceeding? MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This Question has been referred to the County Court Judge for his observations, and he writes as follows:: CUSTOMS ANNUITY AND BENEVOLENT FUND. MR. DAWSON asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Customs Annuity and Benevolent Fund was established for the benefit of the widows and children of Her Majesty's Customs; whether the directors of the Customs Fund, with the consent of the Treasury, THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the facts of the case are as follows:-In 1817, the Directors of the Customs Annuity and Benevolent Fund purchased, for au annual payment of £2,000, the interest of the Lewis family in the Patent under which they held the office of the "Clerk of the Bills of the Customs," or "Bill of Entry," as it afterwards came to be called, the Patent being renewed to them for 31 years. In 1848, the Patent was again renewed on certain conditions-for instance, a reduction in the price at which the publication was sold for a further period of 31 years. In 1879, the renewed Patent lapsed, and all rights under it were extinguished. Her Majesty's then Government had meanwhile appointed a Committee to inquire into the whole matter, and they refused to renew the Patent, not considering it right that their servants should make a profit out of the sale of Government information. The clerks employed on the "Bill of Entry" work were offered the option of continuing their employment on behalf of the Government, who henceforth intended themselves to issue the "Bill of Entry," and they accepted the terms offered to them. I cannot admit that the participators in the funds have any claim whatever to compensation. They purchased the remainder of the Patent, as they might have purchased the remainder of a lease; and the figures quoted by the hon. Member, which I have no reason to question, show how good a bargain they made for themselves. I see no object in going back on the work of former years with the object of renewing objectionable monopolies of this character, which, however consonant with former ideas, are altogether opposed to our present financial practice. MR. DAWSON: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman, is it a fact that the Government not only did not renew the right, but allowed it to lapse? Whether the Government, after taking advantage of all the time this Company worked, had followed this up by getting all their books and papers when it was a going concern of considerable property? MR. DEASY asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether he has received offers of steamers from Irish Shipowners for transport purposes on as favourable terms as from English Shipowners; and, whether any Irish ships have been engaged; and, if not, on what grounds? MR. CAINE (for Sir THOMAS BRASSEY): Offers have been received within the last few days from the owners of upwards of 900 steamers, with, for the most part, nothing to indicate the nationality of the owners, that not being a point to which the attention of the Board is directed. The only stipulation required is, that the owner of the ship used in transport shall be a British subject. Of the ships taken, two-the Dunluce and the Camel-belong to the Port of Belfast. Two others belonging to the Port of Sunderland, and one belonging to the Port of Liverpool, are, I think, the property of Irish owners. MR. DEASY: I will ask the hon. Gentleman, if he will draw their attention to the point? MR. CAINE: The Admiralty will consider which are the fittest ships for the purpose for which they intend them. ARMY-THE MARINE ARTILLERY AND THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE- VISCOUNT LEWISHAM asked the QUER (Mr. CHILDERS) said, he had no Secretary of State for War, Whether he further information on the subject. can state the reason why not a single Officer of the Marine Artillery or InfanIRELAND—THE VICEREGAL COURT-try has been appointed to the general THE GENTLEMAN USHER TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT. MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHY asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that the Hon. Gaston W. Monsell, Gentleman Usher to the Lord Lieutenant, refused to fulfil his official functions at the State Ball held in Dublin Castle on the day of the death of the late Cardinal M'Cabe? MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: No, Sir; it is not a fact. staff of the force under General Graham, although that force has held Suakin for more than a year? THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON : The Military Authorities are not agreed as to what are the qualifications necessary in an officer of the Royal Marines; but General Graham will be authorized to select such officers at present serving at Suakin as he may think right. BOARD OF WORKS (IRELAND)—MONO- CORPORATION OF LONDON TOWER BRIDGE BILL. stances the Board of Works (Ireland) | by competition, and this rule is duly obhave used the monolithic system in the served. construction of piers and breakwaters; have they refused to do so for the proposed pier at Tramore, county Waterford, though suggested by an eminent local engineer; was the engineer in chief of the Board of Works examined as to the merits of the monolithic system, and is he in favour of it; and, is it a fact that, in the case of the works proceeding at Kinsale Harbour, it is intended to use concrete blocks, laying them down on their narrow sides or ends on mud of from 15 to 20 feet in depth? MR. HIBBERT: The Board of Works use the monolithic system in all cases where it is applicable, being themselves in favour of it, as is also their engineer. The Board have not refused to use that system at Tramore; and as regards Kinsale, the use of concrete blocks is an improvement on the original design, which was for a dry rubble work. The foundation there is believed to be quite secure. MR. DEASY: Would the hon. Gentleman state, if it is a fact that the Government Inspector stated before a Select Committee that the harbour was not worth anything on account of the bad foundation? MR. HIBBERT: I must ask the hon. Member to put down his Question on the Paper. CUSTOMS PROMOTION AT LIVERPOOL. LORD CLAUD HAMILTON asked the Secretary to the Treasury, How it is that no promotion has been made in Liverpool, during the past fifteen months, from the ranks of the Acting Examining Officers, to the situation of Examining Officer of Customs; and, whether there is a Treasury Minute in force providing that promotions to the higher rank should be equally divided between the Acting Examining Officers and candidates by competition? MR. HIBBERT: Three outdoor officers at Liverpool, approved to act as examining officers, have been promoted to be examining officers during the last 15 months, two by competition and one by selection. The rule is that vacancies in this rank are to be filled up from the grades of assistant examining officer, principal coast officer, outdoor officer, and boatman, equally by selection and Mr. W. J. Corbet MR. BRODRICK asked the Secre tary of State for War, Whether his attention has been drawn to the Corporation of London Tower Bridge Bill, and to the fact that the centre line of the proposed bridge, as shown by the deposited plan and sections, intersects the precincts of the Tower of London; and, whether the promoters of the Bill have yet applied for and obtained any sanction for such interference, or for the erection of the bridge, in such close proximity to the fortress? THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: My attention has been drawn to the interference by the proposed bridge with the Tower precincts, and I have called upon the promoters to submit revised plans. EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION) — THE SUAKIN-BERBER RAILWAY. SIR HENRY TYLER asked the Secretary of State for War, in reference to the construction of the proposed railway from Suakin to Berber, Whether he will consider the advisability of furnishing special instructions to the officers deputed to superintend the construction, and to the contractors engaged on the work, to the effect that the tribesmen and natives should, as far as practicable, be employed in making the railway, and that pains be taken to circulate amongst them liberal offers, and to afford to them good treatment and acceptable remuneration for their services, so as to convert them, under British protection, from fanatical enemies to interested friends and allies? THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: During the past year every effort has been made to induce the Natives and tribesmen of the territories adjoining Suakin to take employment under the British authorities. The same policy will, I have no doubt, be pursued in the construction of the railway. NAVY-PENSIONS — PETTY OFFICERS. SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is intended to give to the executive Chief Petty Officers of the Royal Navy a pension based on the rank they hold, MR. GORST asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the diplomatic engagement formerly made with France not to occupy the New Hebrides, to Mr. Meade's suggestion at Berlin that France should be allowed to take the New Hebrides, and to the diplomatic engagements recently made with Germany not to assume sovereignty over the North Coast of New Guinea, and not to occupy Samoa or Tonga, he will give a pledge that Her Majesty's Government will not surrender any more British rights in the Pacific Ocean until the Colonial governments interested and the British Parliament have had the opportunity of fully considering the interests of the British Empire in the Pacific? MR. GLADSTONE: The Question of the hon. and learned Gentleman rests upon certain assumptions which are set forth in the Preamble, and to which we are not able to accede. For example, with respect to the New Hebrides, our statement is this-that the engagement with France to maintain the neutrality of the New Hebrides continues in force, and that there has been no proposal that France should assume the Sovereignty of the New Hebrides, unless on terms satisfactory to the Australian Colonies. So far for the New Hebrides. As re gards New Guinea, again, we think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has been inaccurately informed. There has been no such diplomatic engagements with Germany as to New Guinea as he supposes, and a telegram shows that the German annexation of New Guinea has not been made in any way by concert with the Government of this country, and not, therefore, by any surrender of any right on the part of this country. Then, again, with regard to Samoa and Tonga, I believe the fact is this-that Germany has fully maintained its engagement not to occupy Samoa or Tonga, and the German Government itself has expressly disowned the course taken by the German Consul in Samoa in hoisting the German flag there. There are statements to which references to Papers could be supplied to the hon. and learned Gentleman if he desires it; but that being so, we cannot allow that any British rights have been surrendered, and the Question of the hon. and learned Gentleman falls to the ground. EGYPT-PRINCE BISMARCK'S SPEECH IN THE REICHSTAG. SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the report of a speech delivered in the Reichstag by Prince Bismarck, as reported in The Times of the 4th March, in which he says, in reference to Egypt "I therefore did not advise England 'to take it,' but, on the contrary, dissuaded her from annexing it as urgently as was possible in my disinterested position; and, how far Her Majesty's Government can reconcile this declaration with a statement made elsewhere by Lord Granville, to the effect that "The policy of the Government has never yet been in accord with the advice with regard to Egypt which he (Prince Bismarck) gave to the late Government and ourselves, namely to take it ?" MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Gentleman asks me to reconcile a statement those of made by Earl Granville with a speech of Prince Bismarck reported yesterday, they appearing not to be in harmony one with the other. My impressions upon the matter had been the same as my noble Friend; but I think my hon. Friend will agree with me I had better not enter upon the subject at present, as I do not think any public advantage will arise from it, and I have reason to believe that my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will, in his place in the other House, make a statement upon the subject shortly. keep him on the borders of Afghanistan, | (Mr. Heneage), and I wish to speak exand for what purpose; and, if he can plicity to the House. On the part of now state the purport of the visit of the Her Majesty's Government I am bound Amir to His Excellency the Viceroy; on to say that, at the present moment, what basis any understanding respecting Questions relating to policy or to future the relative positions of England, Russia, contingencies on the subject of the Afand Afghanistan on the Afghan frontier ghan Frontier cannot, in our judgment, is to be framed? be answered without prejudice to the public interest. I will state certain reasons why I think that to be plainly the case. The policy to be pursued in relation to the Afghan Frontier has long, in my opinion, been known to be a policy strictly national, having the assent of the country at large, well MR. HENEAGE asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it may not be highly prejudicial to the maintenance of a good understanding between England and Russia for questions to be asked in this House in relation to Afghanistan at a time when the diplomatic relations between the two Countries are exceed-known to Parliament, stated in Parliaing strained, and when answers to questions are likely to be misinterpreted either as a sign of weakness or a sign of menace? MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the important letter from The Times Correspondent with Sir Peter Lumsden's Mission in Afghanistan, which appeared in that paper on the 3rd March, and especially to the following extracts :— mentary Papers and documents which are before it, and known also to be a policy upon which there is a general-I may say, perhaps, an unanimous-accord. The putting of any Question in relation to this policy and to contingen. cies in connection with it is. I think, to be deprecated, and I may, perhaps, add that the manner in which answers to these Questions are frequently received in some parts of the House, tends to break down the conviction that this "I have pointed out the great strategical country in regard to the Afghan Fronimportance of Pul-i-Khatum, a place which has tier is a perfectly united country, and always been considered Afghan, and beyond the to propagate and foster an opposite and pale of discussion. Another important position is Penjdeh, in the valley of the Murghab. Its very injurious feeling that there are difinhabitants have always been subject to Afghan-ferences of opinion about it, and that istan, and it is occupied by an Afghan garrison. Russia does not desire the definition of the Afghan frontier, for it will put an end to her successful system of stealthy encroachment. Three years ago the nearest Russian outposts on the road from the Caspian were at Krasnovodsk and Chikishlar, 700 miles from Herat ; now they are at Pul-i-Khatum, only 150 miles from Herat. Three years ago the nearest Rus: sian outposts on the road from the Oxus and Merv were at Katra Kurghan, say 500 miles from Herat; now they are at Zotatan, 140 miles from Herat. Nearly all this progress has been made by unopposed encroachments since we evacuated Kandahar;' whether it is true that the Russian troops have just occupied Zulfagar, 40 miles south of Pul-i-Khatun, and Penjdeh (all three places being on Afghan territory); and, whether Her Majesty's Ministers intend to protect the absolute integrity of all Afghan territory, including these important positions, from Russian occupation and influence, in accordance with their own pledges and those of the Czar's Government? MR. GLADSTONE: What I have to say upon these Questions is this-I will first take the Question of my hon. Friend Mr. Onslow the matter is one of Party contention. Without going into other reasons, I think the House will appreciate that which I have mentioned. I do hope that reserve will be exercised by hon. Gentlemen upon this subject, and that they will not put Questions except as to matters of fact. I may almost venture to say once for all-I do not say with absolutely no exception-that it will be the duty of the Government to confine themselves to matters of fact in dealing with the matter. This is my general answer to my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Heneage). With reference to the expression he has used, implying that there are strained relations between this country and Russia, it is one which I do not at all desire or think it necessary to adopt. Upon the general grounds of which I have spoken, having regard to the nature of the case-which is evidently one of the utmost importance-and at the same time considering the circumstances of distance and of doubt as to particular points of detail, and the fact that this is a matter of great delicacy, in which it |